Preventing conflict,

sustaining peace
Joint UNDP-DPPA programme on building
national capacities for conflict prevention
1 December 2018 – 31 December 2023
 Executive summary

Violent conflict has surged in recent years, and in 2016, more countries experienced violent conflict
than at any time in nearly 30 years. While the complex relationship between conflict, security and
development is increasingly understood, international assistance and investment in conflict
prevention have remained relatively low. At the same time, approaches to preventing conflict have
been refined considerably, as policy and practice on peacebuilding have evolved – and the UN, its
Member States and other partners are increasingly looking to prevention as a critical strategy for
sustaining peace and nurturing development. Conflict prevention is increasingly recognised as a
rational and cost-effective strategy for countries at risk of violence and for the international
community.1

The joint UNDP-DPA programme on building national capacities for conflict prevention has made a
ground-breaking contribution in bridging the gap between political engagement and development
assistance in pursuit of preventing conflict and sustaining peace. In its new phase, the Joint UNDP-
DPPA2 Programme will further strengthen the analytical capacities of national stakeholders and the
UN system in support of Member States’ efforts to advance policy and programmatic coherence on
conflict prevention and support strategies for sustaining peace. The new phase of the joint
programme is accordingly designed such to contribute to two mutually supportive outcomes:

Outcome 1: Targeted initiatives and national capacities are more effectively contributing to
conflict prevention and sustaining peace.

Outcome 2: UN Country Teams have strategies and programmes that are increasingly conflict
sensitive, and are leading partnerships on sustaining peace.

The programme has been reconfigured to maximise its contribution in the context of ongoing
reforms to the UN Peace and Security architecture and the UN Development System, building also
on prior experience and lessons learned. A rigorous monitoring framework will ensure a results-
based approach to programme implementation, clarity of work streams, and consistent, interactive
engagement with donors/development partners.

1. Situation analysis

Over the last decade, global peace has been in steady decline. According to the Global Peace Index,
just two of the last ten years saw a reduction in conflict worldwide (most recently in 2014).3 By 2016,
more countries were experiencing violent conflict than at any time in nearly 30 years,4 and the number
of people forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, or human rights violations
reached a record high.5

In a major 2018 report, ‘Pathways for Peace’, the United Nations and the World Bank underscored
the close relationship between peace and development. 6 The human and economic cost of conflict is
enormous and, as the UN-World Bank report points out, is all the more pervasive in an increasingly
interdependent world. Women and children often suffer disproportionately. Conflict-related sexual
violence by state and non-state actors has reached unprecedented levels of brutality, calling for much

1
United Nations; World Bank, “Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict”, Washington D.C.,
2018 (hereinafter: UN-World Bank, “Pathways for Peace”).
2 In January 2019, DPA transitions into the DPPA. Hence the Programme title is adjusted to Joint UNDP-DPPA Programme in

it’s next phase. The document refers to DPA when it refers to the period of 2004-2018, and DPPA from 2019 onwards.
3
The Institute for Economics and Peace, 2018, “Global Peace Index”.
4
UN-World Bank, “Pathways for Peace”.
5
UNHCR, 19 June 2017, “Global Trends – Forced Displacement 2016”.
6
UN-World Bank, “Pathways for Peace”.
greater coordination of actions for prevention and an end to impunity.7 Meanwhile, some of the most
acute risks of violence today stem from exclusion, marginalisation and injustices rooted in inequalities
across groups (risks that are compounded by exogenous economic shocks, climate change and
competition for resources).8

Building on a wealth of experience, data and analysis, the ‘Pathways for Peace’ report emphasises the
critical importance of conflict prevention for sustainable peace and development, and elaborates
concrete strategies and inclusive approaches to preventing violent conflict. Moreover, it demonstrates
that prevention is a rational and cost-effective strategy for countries at risk of violence and for the
international community as a whole, citing the potential economic benefit of successful prevention
efforts at as much as USD 70 billion per year, and the annual savings for the international community
on post-conflict humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping interventions at as much as USD 1.5 billion
per year.9 Currently, however, the resources spent on conflict prevention remain very low especially
taking into account the value and cost-effectiveness of the investment.

Consistent with the evolving analysis on peacebuilding and development, the international community
has increasingly recognised the need to work together to sustain peace and prevent the outbreak,
escalation, continuation and recurrence of conflict. At the UN General Assembly and the UN Security
Council, Member States have acknowledged the inherently political nature of peacebuilding processes,
the importance of preventing conflict for realising the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and
the need for an integrated and coherent approach among relevant political, security and development
actors in efforts to sustain peace.10

In tandem, the United Nations organisation itself has placed the highest priority on conflict prevention.
In his report of January 2018, the UN Secretary-General committed to strengthen operational and
policy coherence, leadership, accountability, organisational capacity, financing and partnerships for
peacebuilding and sustaining peace.11 In parallel, the ongoing reform of the peace and security pillar12
of the UN and repositioning of the UN development system 13 are intended to contribute critically to
an organisation that is more effective in supporting Member States in preventing conflict and
sustaining peace.

Since its inception in 2004, the Joint UNDP-DPA Programme on Building National Capacities for Conflict
Prevention has become a flagship initiative building on the strengths of DPA and UNDP respectively.
DPA has the lead role of providing advice and support to the Secretary-General and the United Nations
system in the discharge of the Organization’s global responsibilities related to the prevention, control
and resolution of conflicts, including early warning, preventive diplomacy, mediation, peacebuilding
and sustaining peace. It brings to the programme its expertise in political analysis, mediation,
electoral assistance, and political guidance for effective preventive diplomacy, peacemaking,
peacebuilding and sustaining peace. UNDP, as the main development partner of most governments,
has established close working relationships with key national stakeholders. With strong programmatic
capacities and extensive country programme portfolios in many fragile contexts, UNDP supports
countries to achieve their national development priorities. Given its experience in governance,
peacebuilding and crisis prevention and response work, UNDP is often the development partner of

7
United Nations Peacekeeping, Conflict-related sexual violence, https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/conflict-related-sexual-
violence
8
See also World Bank, “World Development Report: Conflict, Security and Development”, Washington D.C., 2011.
9
UN-World Bank, “Pathways for Peace”, p.3 Box I.1: The Business Case for Prevention.
10
See, in particular, the twin resolutions on the review of the peacebuilding architecture of the UN General Assembly
(A/RES/70/262 (2016)) and the UN Security Council (S/RES/2282 (2016)).
11
Report of the UN Secretary-General, “Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace”, 18 January 2018 (A/72/707-S/2018/43).
12
Report of the UN Secretary-General, “Restructuring of the United Nations peace and security pillar”, 13 October 2017
(A/72/525). See also: Report of the UN Secretary-General, “Revised estimates relating to the programme budget for the
biennium 2018-2019 under section 3, Political affairs, and section 5, Peacekeeping operations, and the proposed budget for
the support account for peacekeeping operations for the period from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 related to the peace and
security reform”, 1 March 2018 (A/72/772).
13
Resolution of the UN General Assembly, “Repositioning of the United Nations development system in the context of the
quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system” (A/72/L.52),
adopted 31 May 2018.
choice for implementing conflict prevention related programmes at the country level. UNDP also
possesses extensive experience of using development interventions to advance the conflict prevention
agenda. UNDP programmes often have two-fold impact: they can create entry points for enhanced
engagement of national stakeholders in prevention, and they can have a direct impact on specific
conflict dynamics. The joint programme has been able to build on these comparative advantages,
hence enhancing cross-pillar collaboration as well as UN programming on conflict prevention.

The Joint Programme has engaged in more than 60 countries to provide support to national
stakeholders, UN Resident Coordinators (RCs) and UN Country Teams (UNCTs) to strengthen national
and local capacities for conflict prevention. Through the deployment of Peace and Development
Advisors (PDAs), the primary instrument of the joint programme, the programme has provided
additional capacity for the RCs to support national partners in dialogue and national or local mediation
processes, the establishment and operationalisation of national infrastructures and mechanisms for
peace; and other initiatives aimed at sustaining peace. Reporting to the RC, the PDAs play a key role
in undertaking political and conflict analysis to connect the development and peace and security pillars
of the UN and helping the UN Country Teams (UNCTs) design programmes that are conflict sensitive
and address conflict drivers in the country. Over the years, the PDAs have made a strong contribution
to strengthen the RCs and increased the capacity of the UNCT to engage in conflict prevention. DPA
has seen enhanced efforts on preventive diplomacy; and UNDP programmes in particular have seen
an increasing focus on prevention, and many new innovative programmes have contributed to
strengthened national conflict prevention capacities. In some cases, national prevention structures
have been institutionalised with the support of the Joint Programme, and continue to be backed up
by UNDP Country Programme portfolios. With strong donor support,14 the joint programme has made
a major contribution to strengthening UN assistance in countries at risk of escalating conflict and
violence and deepening UN policy and partnerships for sustaining peace.

The programme has been widely recognised for providing thought leadership on conflict prevention,
and is considered a unique example of how the development and peace and security pillars of the UN
can successfully work together in pursuit of preventing violent conflict and sustaining peace. The UN
Secretary-General has cited the programme as a best practice of UN engagement on conflict
prevention, and recommended that it “serve as a model” for the system in making available to UN RC
Offices (RCOs) enhanced capacities that are matched to the needs of national priorities.15 Prior to this,
the 2015 Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture found that the Joint Programme
has contributed positively to converging development and political actions in favour of peacebuilding,
and recommended that the Programme should be fully and sustainably funded.16

2. Strategies, including lessons learned and the proposed joint programme

Background and context

Against the backdrop of the peacebuilding and development challenges articulated above, this new
iteration of the joint UNDP-DPPA programme seeks to build on the work of its predecessor
programmes in support of broader UN, other multilateral and bilateral efforts aimed at preventing
conflict and sustaining peace. At the programme’s core is the understanding that sustaining peace is
first and foremost a responsibility of Member States, and an acknowledgement that this requires both
capacity and political will. At its core too is a recognition that the UN must do more to support Member
States to realise their objectives in this regard, and that this is important not only for the national
peace and development dividends that preventing conflict affords, but simultaneously for sustaining
and rejuvenating a global system for prevention that supports a world order in which peace and
security, economic and human development, gender equality and human rights may be fully realised.

14
By 2018, donors to the joint programme included: the European Union, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, the Republic of
Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom.
15
Report of the UN Secretary-General, “Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace”, 18 January 2018 (A/72/707-S/2018/43), at
paragraph 36.
16 Report of the advisory group of experts for the 2015 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development explicitly recognises the major impact of violence and
instability on development and vice-versa, stating that “there can be no sustainable development
without peace, and no peace without sustainable development.” 17 In working to prevent conflict, the
joint UNDP-DPPA programme is geared not only at making a direct contribution to the realisation of
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 (promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies), but also at
advancing a cross-cutting issue to create an enabling environment for the realisation of a whole host
of national and international development objectives.

In the context of the 2016 “twin” UN resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly,
conflict prevention and peacebuilding have become all but synonymous under the umbrella concept
of sustaining peace, embracing the full range of operational activities across the conflict cycle. Echoing
a key message of the High-Level Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO), the resolutions state that
sustaining peace is an “inherently political process”. They prompt the United Nations system to
undertake system-wide engagement on sustaining peace, emphasise the importance of partnerships
(in particular with regional and sub-regional organisations such as the African Union and European
Union, with international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the World Bank, and with regional and
other development banks and civil society organisations), and highlight the need effective, joined-up
financing mechanisms.

The Secretary-General’s reforms to the UN Peace and Security pillar are working to enhance coherence
in engagement on peace and security issues, and to revitalise the role of the Peacebuilding Support
Office (PBSO) through greater integration with the broader UN Secretariat and as part of the new
Department for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. Meanwhile, ambitious and comprehensive reforms
to the UN Development System (UNDS) aspire to reposition the organisation’s operational activities
for development assistance to underpin the 2030 Agenda, in particular via the establishment of a
“new generation of UN Country Teams”, the reinvigoration of the role of the RC system, and the
strengthening of accountability and financing structures.

This new phase of the joint UNDP-DPPA programme has been carefully and consultatively designed
to make a meaningful contribution to policy and programme coherence on sustaining peace at both
the country level and the global level. The primary focus of the programme remains on strengthening
national capacities for conflict prevention, and the primary mechanism at the programme’s disposal
remains the deployment of PDAs. However, the new phase of the joint programme will provide a more
nuanced and more structured support framework to enable PDAs to better engage their mandate,
including through improved deployment planning, greater clarity around mutual expectations and
accountability, more systematic provision of technical and/or strategic support, partnerships
facilitation, better access to knowledge, guidance, best practices and information exchange, and more
systematic allocation of seed funds and resources for catalysing conflict prevention initiatives in
country. In addition, the Joint Programme strives towards reaching gender parity in the PDA cadre
and will emphasize improving the gender expertise within the PDA cadre.

Against the backdrop of the ongoing UN reforms, the programme will provide critical support to the
‘new generation’ of UN Country Teams to focus collective efforts to prevent conflict in a sustainable
and risk informed way. It will also support UNDP in responding to the Member States call for UNDP to
serve as the “support platform of the UN development system, providing an integrator function in
support of countries in their efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda”.18 A more robust programme
monitoring framework will support the UN entities, programme donors and partners to measure
progress on results. Improved central information management will ensure that UNDP and DPPA can
continue to engage proactively in policy and strategy development on peacebuilding and sustaining
peace, and an inclusive partnership strategy will ensure that the programme contributes to overall
UN system coherence and the broader efforts of the international community in this regard.

17
Resolution of the UN General Assembly, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, 25
September 2015 (A/RES/70/1).
18 UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021.
The previous phases of the programme have heavily focused on the deployment of PDAs, and based
on demand, the number of deployments has been steadily increasing. While the specific PDA functions
vary from country-to-country, there are two broad areas of work that characterise the post: the
provision of analysis analysis of the context in the country and region in situations where there is a
risk of conflict; and the connection of this analysis to specific conflict prevention programming. Over
the last few years, there has been increasing demand for more support to be provided to the PDAs to
work with the Resident Coordinator, UNDP as well as wider UNCT programme teams to engage in
small scale activities that support preventative action at the country level, and in development of
more catalytic peacebuilding interventions that the UNCTs can then take forward. The programme
started more systematically providing small scale seed funding to such activities (up to $50,000 per
PDA were for the first time provided to a significant number of PDAs at the end of 2016 based on
requests received) when funding recently became available for such initiatives. The PDAs supported
Resident Coordinators and UNDP COs in connecting their analysis to new innovative conflict prevention
programmes that built national prevention capacities. In multiple countries, these initiatives led to
the development of much larger interventions and programmes, and in some cases to programmes
involving several UNCT members on collaborative action on conflict prevention. Based on discussions
with the PDAs, especially during the 2017 PDA Convention that took place in Lausanne, and based on
the independent evaluation conducted during the second half of 2017-early 2018, it became apparent
that the PDAs have the capacity to support the Resident Coordinator, UNDP and other UNCT members
to initiate important dialogue and mediation initiatives, to facilitate different type of conflict analysis
and risk assessments, and to help the Resident Coordinators, UNDP/UNCT kick-start some catalytic
initiatives that could then receive funding from other sources.

In response to this demand, and the recognition that PDAs carry huge workloads, the next phase of
the programme will focus on not only deploying international PDAs, but also providing PDAs with the
required capacities and resources to act as key resources for the UNCTs in conflict prevention. This
will require far greater investments in programmatic seed funds that will be provided to UNCTs for
initiatives that PDAs design together with Resident Coordinator and UNDP teams19, as well as the
deployment of national PDAs and/or secondees to work alongside PDAs as teams. 20

In a recent biennial Joint Programme retreat for RCs working in complex political situations organized
in June 2018, the RCs also requested the Joint Programme to provide additional support to RCs to
have more opportunities for peer to peer exchange and joint learning on issues related to conflict
prevention, such as on supporting national dialogue processes, mediation, supporting national peace
architectures, and to work together on regional issues. Based on this demand, the next phase of the
programme will also aim to provide opportunities to RCs in addition to PDAs for thematic and regional
peer to peer exchanges based on demand.

Lessons learned

Over the course of nearly a decade and a half of implementation, the joint programme has generated
extensive experience and valuable lessons in terms of both substantive approaches and management.
In 2017, the joint programme was externally assessed in an independent mid-term evaluation,
covering the period 2015-2017.21 That evaluation found the joint programme to have had a solid
impact in supporting and strengthening conflict prevention at the country level through the
deployment of Peace and Development Advisors. The evaluation observed sufficient evidence that
national ownership and leadership of PDA-supported initiatives were strong, and considered that by
working with institutions, strategically positioned individuals, and community-level initiatives, the
chances of sustainability of results beyond PDA deployment were generally high. However, the

19 Initiatives will be designed together with the RC, UNDP and DPPA. UNDP RR will hold the financial responsibility as the
funds are provided to the UNDP CO.
20
PDAs will require additional support and capacity building to be able to better support UNCTs in i) conflict-sensitive
approaches to development, ii) peacebuilding programme design, and iii) gender responsive peacebuilding.
21
Ncube, B. and Fergusson, L., “Joint UNDP-DPA Programme Mid-Term Evaluation Report, 2015-2017”, February 2018.
evaluation also pointed to the need to improve results-based management of the joint programme,
strengthen the capacity of the programme secretariat, regularise more rigorous and collaborative
needs assessments, and support key stakeholders to converge expectations under basic multi-year
engagement frameworks. The mid-term evaluation articulated a number of specific conclusions and
recommendations, a summary of which is annexed to this programme document (see Annex I).

This phase of the joint UNDP-DPPA programme draws extensively on the findings of the mid-term
evaluation22 as well as earlier assessments23 and lessons from the broader experiences of UNDP, DPPA
and others in support of Member States’ efforts in preventing conflict and sustaining peace. The latest
review undertaken by DFID, found that the Joint Programme has substantially exceeded all targets
set at the outcome level, including in developing and supporting national initiatives. The programme
framework has been consulted extensively with RCs, PDAs, UN and non-UN entities, academia, and
donor/development partners, with a view to drawing on lessons learned by the broader conflict
prevention community and factoring these into its strategy.

The proposed joint programme: key strategies

The joint programme approach, which brings together UNDP and DPPA and seeks to engage the
broader UN system in operationalising its assistance, reflects an ongoing effort by the UN to maximise
coherence in pursuit of system-wide goals and objectives. Reflecting on the peacebuilding and
development challenges, lessons learned, and the evolving context of UN assistance globally and on
the ground, UNDP and DPPA have devised specific strategies that underpin and enhance this new
iteration of the joint programme. Among the key strategies internalised and promoted by the joint
programme are the following:

i. Quality and breadth: The first – and in many ways the overarching – recommendation of the
mid-term evaluation of the joint programme was that UNDP and DPPA prioritise quality and
breadth, rather than scale up. This principle underpins several of the strategies articulated
below, which have at their centre the concept that the joint programme ‘offer’ – whether in
support of national capacities, country-level or regional initiatives, UN Country Teams, or
indeed UN Peace and Development Advisors themselves – should reflect a stronger and more
holistic package of conflict prevention assistance.

ii. Results-based management: Following the recommendation of the mid-term evaluation of

the joint UNDP-DPPA programme that UNDP and DPPA enhance results-based management
(RBM) approaches in the design and implementation of the new phase of the joint programme,
the UN entities have invested time and resources to ensure that the new programme
framework meets with the highest RBM standards. Notwithstanding the challenges associated
with M&E in relation to conflict prevention work, the programme framework is based on
rigorous theories of change (see Section 3, below), and is equipped with detailed results and
monitoring frameworks that include clear and realistic outputs and appropriate indicators
reflective of international best practices, with milestones and targets. 24

iii. At the country level, each PDA will link their workplan to the global results framework
to ensure that the country level results feed into the global framework and the Secretariat’s
consolidated reporting. The global framework is designed to be flexible yet comprehensive
enough to enable PDAs working on a wide spectrum of issues related to conflict prevention to
connect to it.

22
For a detailed response of UNDP and DPA to the mid-term evaluation findings, see the “Management Response” following
the evaluation (available upon request to donors/development partners).
23
See, for instance: “External Independent Review of the Joint UNDP-DPA Programme, 2012-2014” (funded by UK/DFID on
behalf of UK/DFID, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway), or CSSF Peacebuilding Annual Review 2017/18.
24
Additional information and guidance will be provided to the PDAs and RCs (and through them UNCTs) on the global results
framework, and how it can be adapted to their country context will be provided during the first six months of the programme
implementation.
iv. Context specific allocation of UN peace and development assistance: Peace and
Development Advisors remain the backbone of the joint programme, however with a view to
both sustainability and context specificity of response, the joint programme acknowledges that
there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ formula for supporting UN Country Teams and partner countries.25
Just as the specific PDA profile requirements will vary from context to context, some scenarios
may be better served as part of a regional approach. In other contexts, national peace and
development expertise may be more desirable, and in others still solutions may be found
through the use of third party secondees (such as through Folke-Bernadotte Academy or
similar Member State funded standing capacities) or United Nations Volunteers (UNVs) for
specific types of additional support. Where a particularly complex scenario demands a broader
scope of peace and development capacities, the programme may look to support, as has
occasioned in the past, the establishment of dedicated peace and development units or teams
for this purpose.

v. Criticality assessment and coordinated deployment: The ‘criticality assessment’ has been
undertaken annually to prioritise the deployment of PDAs and ensure that the programme
responds appropriately to evolving needs on the ground in context where there is a risk of
deterioration.26 Under the new programme, the criticality assessment will continue to be
undertaken jointly by DPPA and UNDP, however, the criticality assessment criteria will be
reviewed in light of the new country-level arrangements for RCOs and their requirements as
well as Regional Monthly Reviews (RMRs) at HQ level, to ensure that allocation of PDA expertise
is commensurate with needs (whilst ensuring, critically, that the scale of deployments is not
permitted to divert from the quality and breadth of joint programme’s support).

vi. In view of the current number of settings in which UN peacekeeping and special political
missions are in the process of drawing down, criteria will be included relating to peace
operations transition settings. The criticality assessment will also be informed by DPPA’s
analysis of the country context and the UNDP Crisis Risk Dashboard which identifies escalating
risks and provides additional input to inform the decision-making on the country priorities. The
programme will coordinate with other providers of deployed assistance (e.g. with OHCHR as
concerns Human Rights Advisors) to ensure that resources are optimised and duplication
avoided.

vii. Towards multi-year engagement frameworks: As recommended by the mid-term

evaluation, with a view to sustainability and results and consistent with the results-based
management approaches of the new phase of the joint programme, UNDP and DPPA will place
greater emphasis on the development of multi-year engagement frameworks or strategies that
are appropriately informed by PDA analysis. Alignment will be sought between country-level
and global-level objectives and results, and greater mutual information flow between PDAs
and headquarters in strategy definition.

viii. Supporting and empowering PDAs: In view of the often-cited problem that PDAs are
frequently over-stretched and subject to conflicting expectations, the joint programme will
henceforth base all deployments on an exchange of letters between UN RCs and the ASGs of
UNDP and DPPA27, setting out with clarity the roles, functions and expectations of PDAs against
which performance can be managed and mutual expectations can be defined. One of the areas
that will be highlighted in the exchange of letters is the PDA serves as an advisor and is not

25 PBSO reports that programmes funded by PBF are off better quality in countries where PDAs are deployed. However,
there are still countries with capacity gaps among PDAs and key members of the UNCT in peacebuilding design and
programming. The Joint Programme will address these through dedicated support to PDAs from its enhanced technical team
and through designing a conflict prevention/peacebuilding training course for PDAs.
26
The criticality assessment is undertaken by the regional Divisions of DPPA and UNDP Regional Bureaux, and will be approved
by the co-chairs of the Steering Committee. The criteria of the criticality assessment will be reviewed based on the impact of
the reforms on the programme during the first 9 months of the programme implementation.
27 Based on views of DPPA desk officers and UNDP RRs.
 deployed to implement or oversee programmes and also that the PDA needs to be considered
as a system-wide resource that the whole UNCT can benefit from (especially with shared
conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity of the UNCT programme portfolio). The new phase of
the programme gives more balanced attention to the broader support infrastructure
surrounding the deployment of PDAs. In this respect, the programme will enhance efforts to
ensure that PDAs are better equipped and empowered to deliver on their mandates, including
through more effective resourcing, appropriate backstopping support, better networking and
access to best practices and knowledge management.

ix. Knowledge and tools for conflict prevention: a ‘one-stop-shop’ for the UN system: As
a bridge between different parts of the UN system at headquarters, with extensive experience
from the field and an expanding network of partners, the joint programme is ideally placed to
position itself as a repository of knowledge and tools for conflict prevention. Under this new
phase, the joint programme will pilot the peace infrastructures portal as initially an online
portal for the community of practice of PDAs, as well as a one-stop-shop for knowledge
materials and tools on conflict prevention. The portal includes resources and latest papers on
sustaining peace, infrastructures for peace and other thematic areas that PDAs need to be
aware of from across the UN system and beyond as well as tools such as the UNDG tool on
conflict and development analysis (CDA). It also has a private community of practice site where
PDAs can discuss privately issues affecting them. The intention of the Portal is to serve a
diverse group of conflict prevention practitioners. Partnerships across the UN system and
beyond will therefore be sought and interactive features will be designed to cater for wider
engagement in discussion forums and direct links will be made accessible to other portals and
community platforms.

x. Strengthening capacity for conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity: Effective conflict
analysis is the starting point for all engagement in support of conflict prevention and sustaining
peace. Several tools and methodologies exist within the UN system and beyond, that may be
adapted to suit different needs in different contexts. The joint programme takes the position
that no one tool ought to be prescribed, however all possible steps should be taken to ensure
that analysis is jointly conducted and appropriately disseminated (this being a core element of
the function of a PDA). In the new phase of the joint programme, UNDP and DPPA have
committed to a three-pronged approach: i) building internal UN capacity for conflict analysis
and conflict sensitivity; ii) building national capacity for conflict sensitivity; and, iii) supporting
country presences in conducting regular conflict analysis (including political economy analysis,
climate sensitivity, and other issues were necessary).28 In all elements of this approach, it
merits recalling that the gender dimension is expected to be a key component.

xi. From analysis to strategy development and programming: Analysis serves little purpose
unless it is effectively translated into strategy and programming. Understanding areas of
contestation – whether related to power and governance, land and natural resources, economic
and social issues, human rights, gender, climate risk, service delivery or access to security and
justice – and the requirements to overcome them, must be able to inform solutions. In addition
to better supporting PDAs and national partners to undertake robust analysis, the new phase
of the joint programme places renewed emphasis on supporting PDAs to harness that analysis
so that it better informs the decision-making, strategy development and programming of UN
leadership and the UNCT. Input from PDAs during key programme planning processes,
including UNDAF development, is an important factor and will be advocated strongly by the
programme as a prerequisite for PDA deployment. However more ad hoc input is also critical
in order to ensure conflict sensitive programme development that is responsive to openings
for preventive engagement. PDAs will increasingly be expected to engage in all regular UNCT
meetings to maximise the prospects for seizing such opportunities, while provision for ‘seed

28
See draft discussion paper, “Strengthening Capacity for Conflict Analysis and Conflict Sensitivity” (UNDP, 2017), which
outlines a proposed ‘strategic way forward’ in this respect, based on lessons learned in the implementation of the Conflict
Development Analysis (CDA) tool.
 funding’ for innovative conflict prevention initiatives will provide UN entities at the country
level with the necessary catalytic funding to pursue them.

xii. Working with national authorities and other stakeholders: The overall purpose of the
joint programme is to build national prevention capacities, both those of national authorities
as well as civil society and other important stakeholders at the country level. While these
efforts fall under the overall responsibility of the UNCT, PDAs through their specific expertise,
role, mandate and network are in an unique position to play a catalytic and enabling role to
support UN-wide preventive action. Additional efforts will be made to ensure PDAs work even
more closely with the relevant national authorities, and that the programme will maximise a
positive contribution towards strengthening national counterparts, as well as civil society,
including women and youth groups (who in many conflict settings are among the most
marginalised and discriminated groups in society). Through supporting UNCT efforts in helping
national stakeholders in preventing the outbreak of violent conflict, the programme also aims
to support the establishment of national policies and mechanisms that are based on the
principles of inclusion.

xiii. Building on entry points created by Agenda 2030: One of the key entry points for RCs
and PDAs at the country level are the SDGs and the globally endorsed 2030 Agenda, with SDG
16 providing an opening to discuss highly sensitive issues. The programme will support RCs
and PDAs in building on these openings in countries utilising the convening role that the UN
has on supporting the achievement of SDGs.

xiv. Maximising partnerships and advocacy: The joint programme will further emphasise its
role as a cross-pillar convener on conflict prevention at the HQ as well as country level. The
programme has played an important role globally bringing the peace & security and
development pillars together, and at the country level in supporting RCs in their role as a
convener and facilitator. Additional focus will be placed on supporting UNDP and DPPA in their
role in policy debates at the global level and ensuring knowledge lifted from the PDA
engagement at the country level is fed into the policy formulation processes. The enhanced
knowledge management and reporting on the work of the PDAs and UNCTs in the field of
sustaining peace will allow DPPA and UNDP to make a greater contribution to these debates in
the future. This programme will focus also on building stronger partnerships with International
Financial Institutions such as the World Bank and diplomatic delegations, as well as where
appropriate with regional and sub-regional organisations in coordination with relevant DPPA
and UNDP teams. Finally, the Joint Programme has the ability to bring the UN system together
to reflect and discuss on how the UN can work together to realise a commonly agreed
prevention agenda. This includes bringing together stakeholders from DPA and UNDP but also
PBSO, UN Women, DPKO, UNICEF and others. The Programme will seek to enhance these
partnerships and continue to play its role in cross-pillar collaboration.29

xv. Gender equality, Women, Peace and Security: The implementation of the women, peace
and security agenda is a key part of the successful pursuit of preventing conflict and sustaining
peace. The joint programme will systematically gender mainstream all its activities and
outcomes, in line with the UN Strategic Results Framework on Women Peace and Security:
2011-2020, including through:

- Strengthening gender-sensitive political analysis, e.g. through assessing the impact of

conflict on men and women and mapping the extent and impact of conflict-related sexual
violence and measures to address it.
- Promoting women’s participation in conflict prevention and peacebuilding processes
- Inclusive and gender-responsive process design of conflict prevention and peacebuilding
efforts, with an emphasis on ensuring the participation of traditionally excluded

29 See additional information in the partnerships section.

 population groups, such as youth, marginalized women, minorities, people with
disabilities.

To strengthen the capacity of PDAs in the aforementioned areas, specific guidance based on
lessons learned and best practices and training opportunities will be provided to PDAs,
including through the DPA WPS annual training and during PDA retreats and inductions. In
addition, the Joint Programme has developed a Gender Workplan, which aims to strengthen
women’s empowerment and gender equality in the work of PDAs. The Gender Workplan will
be reviewed and updated in 2019 in view of the Programme’s new RBF to ensure the
achievement of gender outputs and activities.

xvi. Ensuring gender parity and gender expertise in the PDA cadre: The Joint Programme
is continuously reviewing its progress towards gender parity. It undertook a study called
‘Examining the gender disparity in the PDA cadre’ in 2015, based on the main
recommendations of this study, which include the need to provide guidance and support to
recruitment processes to mitigate bias and ensure gender balance and maximize retention of
female PDAs.Based on these recommendations, the PDA rostering process went through
extensive vetting to achieve parity. As a result, 50% of P5 roster candidates, and 47% of P4
roster candidates are women. As of November 2018, As of November 2018, out of the 56
PDA and PDSs 46% women (26 out of 56).To advance progress made to date, the
programme is striving towards achieving gender parity and gender expertise within the PDA
cadre over the next two programme cycles through:

- Ensure gender balance in recruitment processes by providing guidance to those involved

in recruitment processes, raising awareness on implicit gender biases and UN gender
parity commitments.
- Strengthen the capacity of potential female PDA candidates (including in the PDA roster,
junior PDAs and secondees and relevant national staff)
- Inclusion of gender dimensions, e.g. attention for gender in PDA trainings, inclusion of
gender-relevant deliverables in terms of references, PDA workplans and accountability
measures

xvii. Climate related security Risks: With the increasing advancement of climate change around
the world, member states increasingly promote the need for climate change to be at the heart
of the peace and security agenda of the 21st century. UNDP, UNEP and DPA jointly work on
supporting the implementation of requests made through Security Council resolutions (e.g.
UNSC Resolution 2349 on Lake Chad), emphasising the need for adequate risk assessments
and risk management strategies by governments and the United Nations relating to these
factors. The newly established joint UNDP-UNEP-DPA initiative on “Strengthening the UN’s
Capacity to Address Climate Related Security Risks” seeks to support:

- Climate sensitive conflict analysis and/or conflict risk assessment;

- Climate sensitive conflict prevention strategy development and programming;
- Advocacy with national authorities and partners on climate related peace and security risks.

- PDAs will be asked to support this analysis where relevant; and will also benefit from
some of the agreed interventions arising from this joint UNDP-UNEP-DPA initiative.

xviii. New technologies: As the Secretary-General has recognized in his Strategy on New
Technologies, harnessing innovation and new technologies will be critical to the achievement
of the SDGs. PDAs will be supported and encouraged to draw on new technologies in all
relevant aspects of their work. Second, PDAs will also be supported to incorporate issues of
cybersecurity in their analysis, recognising that while technologies hold great promise, they
can be used for malicious ends or have unintended negative consequences with an impact on
societal dynamics. In this way, the Joint Programme, will increase the understanding of new
technologies and their benefits and implications for conflict analysis.
Sustainability of results

UNDP and DPPA acknowledge the sustainability challenges when engaging in conflict prevention and
make provision in the joint programme to position in favour of sustainable results. Being responsive
to the context is critical for sustainability, however contexts also vary considerably, and may change
drastically throughout the programme cycle. For this reason, the joint programme results framework
takes into account that specific indicators will need to be defined at the programme design stage from
country to country, and that entry points and opportunities will be different in every context. To
ensure that support is appropriately targeted with respect to the context, the joint programme will
work closely with PDAs to ensure the development of context-specific theories of change and key
indicators will be elaborated on a country-by-country basis and updated based on developments in
the country and analysis, with a first draft agreed as part of the initial deployment of UN peace and
development capacities, and these subsequently refined on the basis of quality conflict analysis once
the PDA/team is in-country, and will be set out in an agreed workplan.

The programme also recognises the particular sustainability challenge at points of transition in PDA
assistance (e.g. between PDA deployments or upon discontinuation of PDA support) and will work
with UNCTs and PDAs with the aim to institutionalise conflict prevention capacities within national
structures and institutions. Identifying the most salient targets for support at the country level,
especially considering the need to ensure value for money and the most effective use of resources,
will be critical. The joint programme will therefore use a combination of peace & conflict analysis and
needs assessments to identify the most appropriate avenues for assistance. The joint programme
would link to other forms of support to UNCTs and elsewhere (and, wherever possible, explore cost-
sharing options) so that if the programme redeploys resources from one country to another, the work
of the programme continues through other mechanisms, including through UNDP conflict prevention
interventions where relevant. The joint programme must be cautious not to withdraw support too
early, but to follow through on what are long-term processes to support national conflict prevention
and peacebuilding efforts. Multi-year commitments and strategies are an element for mitigating this
risk.

3. Results framework and theories of change

The joint UNDP-DPPA programme is fully aligned with the Strategic Plans of UNDP 30 and DPPA31, and
the overarching vision of the UN Secretary-General on preventing conflict and sustaining peace. 32
Consistent with these overarching frameworks, the joint programme defines its overall goal as
‘building national capacities on conflict prevention.’

Theory of change

In pursuit of this overall goal, the joint programme is conceived and structured based on a theory of
change that draws on analysis, experience, up-to-date development scholarship and international
best practices. In broad terms, at the highest level, this theory of change posits that:

When efforts to prevent conflict and sustain peace are analysis-based, robust, inclusive,
and nationally-led, and when these are supported to an appropriate extent by coherent
international strategies and programmes, Member States are better equipped to mitigate
the risks of conflict and fragility, and to pursue their development priorities.

Thus, the programme seeks to serve as a vehicle both to assist Member States to deepen their
capacities in terms of skills, systems and processes for conflict prevention, and to assist UN Country

30
Executive Board of UNDP, “UNDP Strategic Plan, 2018-2021”, 17 October 2017 (DP/2017/38).
31
UN Department of Political Affairs, “DPA Strategic Plan, 2016-2019”, 20 November 2015.
32
Report of the UN Secretary-General, “Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace”, 18 January 2018 (A/72/707-S/2018/43).
Teams to serve better these same objectives. Based on this overall theory of change, the participating
UN entities have identified two interrelated outcomes to which the joint UNDP-DPPA programme is
designed to contribute. Each of these outcomes in turn rests on its own related change hypotheses,
reflecting a series of causal pathways for achievement of the programme’s objectives at all levels.

Outcomes to which the joint programme aims to contribute and outcome level theories of change

Outcome one: Targeted initiatives and national capacities are more effectively contributing
to conflict prevention and sustaining peace

Outcome one reflects the participating UN entities’ understanding that in any given context there are
two things that are necessary for building and sustaining peace: firstly, national capacities (i.e. skills,
understanding, and resources) within a society that can help prevent and manage conflict; secondly
particular initiatives (e.g. policies, forums, programmes, systems, or other peace architectures and/or
processes) to address specific challenges or create or make the most of particular political
opportunities.

There may be a variety of institutions, organisations and individuals contributing to conflict prevention
and peacebuilding – and many of these have legitimacy, credibility, knowledge and insight in a way
that external actors, including the UN, may not. However, these national capacities are also often not
as effective as they might be. While needs vary from context to context, national institutions and
organisations often suffer from a lack of financial means, technical support and comparative
experience, or political space and political support. As a consequence, many countries at risk of conflict
and fragility lack the policies, institutional architecture, representation and skills needed effectively to
prevent conflict and sustain peace.

In addition, the outcome reflects the participating UN entities’ understanding that in any given context
there is likely to be a variety of processes and initiatives being undertaken in support of sustaining
peace. These processes themselves are generally ‘owned’ by others, i.e. not by the joint programme,
per se, but normally either by national actors or by the UN more broadly. The joint programme’s
approach to contributing to this outcome is based on the theory of change hypotheses that:

If a country/government has clear national policies that explicitly address conflict

prevention, peacebuilding, and the underlying drivers of conflict, then national resources
are more likely to be effectively directed towards sustaining peace.

If a country has a national architecture (institutions, structures and organisations) with

clear mandates around sustaining peace that are properly resourced then it is more likely
to be effective in preventing and managing conflict.

If national leaders and officials from both government and civil society have improved
skills in preventing and managing conflict, then the institutions and processes in which
they participate are likely to be more effective in sustaining peace.

If a wide variety of people (based on the principle of inclusion), of all genders and from
all groups and segments of society, are able to participate in and influence policy,
processes and architectures around sustaining peace, these are more likely to address the
diverse needs and interests of society and thus be more effective in sustaining peace.

If country-level, regional, or internationally-supported initiatives in support of conflict

prevention are well designed and well managed, and if they are able to draw on robust
analysis, comparative expertise and best practices, they are likely to yield more effective
results for sustaining peace.

Specifically, the joint programme will utilise several practical tools designed to contribute to this
outcome. Deployment of Peace and Development Advisors (through international PDAs, national
Peace and Development Officers (PDOs) or other tailored combinations of personnel) will continue to
provide much of the technical support to national partners and the UN system and comparative
experience required for the advancement of these. The PDAs, working with the RC and the UNCT, will
further support national stakeholders to maximise political ‘space’ to engage in effective conflict
prevention and provide facilitation support to dialogue and other processes in support of sustaining
peace. The PDAs will play a key role in preventive diplomacy in the countries where they are deployed.

The programme, principally through the PDAs, will also support small-scale capacity-building and
training initiatives for national peacebuilding actors. Meanwhile, based on deeper understanding of
the various contexts, the joint programme will work to link to or leverage other support to national
capacities, notably in terms of ‘tapping into’ relevant channels of expertise and assistance from UN
headquarters (e.g. UNDP crisis, technical and RBx, DPPA/MSU, DPPA/MST, PBF/PBSO, OHCHR, UN
Women, UNICEF, UNV, etc.) and the UN’s broader network of partners from Member States and civil
society. Whilst the country level capacity building is undertaken by the PDAs, the Joint Programme
secretariat will play an important role in supporting PDAs and providing them with seed funds to
undertake these activities; and also connect the PDAs with the appropriate HQ resources where
needed.

The joint programme, both institutionally and through the PDAs, will work to strengthen initiatives
geared at sustaining peace, with a particular focus on early warning systems, preventive diplomacy,
mediation and national dialogue, integrating gender-responsive approaches and participation of
women and gender experts throughout. The programme and its PDAs will support the initiation and
convening of such processes, with the aim of deepening inclusive participation of those traditionally
excluded ((e.g. minority groups, people with disabilities, young people and marginalized men and
women). The programme will provide facilitation support and make available comparative expertise
through its deployed PDAs. The programme will provide and facilitate access to appropriate expertise
and comparative experiences from within the wider system (e.g. through the DPPA Mediation Standby
Team, the UNDP ExpRes roster, and other short-term deployment mechanisms). By providing catalytic
(‘seed’) funding, the programme will enable innovative and context-specific peacebuilding initiatives
to get underway and demonstrate potential, whilst also supporting these to access/mobilise more
sustainable longer-term funding and support, as appropriate. The specific nature of the initiatives and
the support needed will vary from context to context. Spearheaded by PDAs, more context-specific
theories of change (together with key indicators, linked ideally to the anticipated multi-year
engagement frameworks) will be elaborated on a country-by-country basis and updated as the
situation changes.

Outcome two: UN Country Teams have strategies and programmes that are increasingly
conflict sensitive, and are engaged in wider partnerships on sustaining peace

Outcome two reflects the fact that the UN is often a significant actor in countries at risk of conflict
and fragility, and that in order for the overall strategy and approach of the UN leadership and the UN
Country Team to contribute effectively in support of national efforts on sustaining peace their
engagement and activities must be conflict sensitive and therefore informed by high quality analysis.
This also ensures that UN activities, which might on the surface appear not to be related to the conflict,
“do no harm” in inadvertently contributing to or exacerbating conflict drivers. In this respect, the joint
programme’s approach to contributing to this outcome is based on the theory of change hypothesis
that:

If ‘in-house’ analytical capacities are placed more systematically at the disposal of UN

Country Teams and the UN leadership, and UN entities are incentivised to engage in joint
analysis and planning processes, and staff are supported in developing skills in sustaining
peace, then the UN and its partners will be better placed to ensure that the analysis
effectively informs UN strategy and programming in support of national efforts on
sustaining peace and advancing development.
On this basis, the joint programme will, through a well-managed network of PDAs, work to enhance
the quality and conflict-sensitivity of UN country strategies, under the overall leadership and direction
of the UN RCs33. In particular, PDAs will convene, facilitate and lead conflict analysis processes 34 in
conjunction with all elements of the UN Country Team, ensuring consultation with a wide variety of
stakeholders. PDAs will be expected to generate robust and gender-sensitive conflict analysis and
engage proactively in planning and peacebuilding processes to influence UN country strategy and
programme development processes at the country level, while also working to ensure consistent and
mutually reinforcing approaches from UN entities, leadership and processes at headquarters.

The joint programme will also focus more specifically on the skills and coherence of UN Country
Teams. UNCTs are made up of staff with a wide variety of experiences, but they do not necessarily
have the skills needed to ensure maximum collective effectiveness of UN efforts in support of conflict
prevention and sustaining peace. In addition, UN agencies’ structures and incentives do not always
support a conflict sensitive approach. While some UN entities have introduced frameworks for conflict
sensitivity and peacebuilding, staff often require support to implement and mainstream these in
practice, especially where this is not deemed, prima facie, to be a core element of a staff member’s
technical or operational function. The joint programme is committed to supporting improvements to
the skills and coherence of UN country teams in this respect. In so doing, the joint programme aims
to contribute to: i) increased conflict sensitivity in the approaches and programmes of UNCTs; ii)
improved UNCT capacities to design and implement more effective conflict-related programming, and;
iii) enhanced UNCTs that are better equipped to support national conflict prevention capacities and
efforts. In this respect, the joint programme’s approach to contributing to this outcome is based on
the theory of change hypothesis that:

If UN Country Teams and their staff are supported to become more knowledgeable and
skilled in conflict prevention and sustaining peace, conflict sensitive approaches to
programming will become more common, dedicated conflict prevention programming will
become more sophisticated, and the collective efforts of the UNCT towards outcomes one
and two will be more likely to yield results.

Through the effective use of deployed PDAs, the joint programme will therefore support improvements
to the skills and coherence of UNCTs through facilitation of participatory analysis processes, provision
of increased guidance and technical assistance on conflict sensitive approaches, increased guidance
and support with the development of programmatic responses to the issues raised in the analysis,
and increased training and practical learning opportunities for the UNCT on conflict-related issues.
Certain processes represent good opportunities and incentives to bring UNCT staff together around
joint conflict analysis and/or programme planning processes, such as the Common Country
Assessment and UNDAF development processes, and preparation of project funding submissions. The
PDAs will support the RCs and UNCTs in these processes. PDAs will also be better supported (including
with greater access to resources and support from a strengthened joint programme secretariat team)
to be able to provide expertise and training to the UNCT.

The joint programme is one small part of a much larger UN system, which is actively working to
strengthen its engagement and assistance on sustaining peace. Moreover, the UN itself is one player
amongst many in the sustaining peace field. In some country contexts, for example, the UN is one of
the most influential external actors, while in others, the World Bank or the EU is more prominently
engaged. As recognised by the mid-term evaluation of the joint programme, the programme is well
positioned to support and inform the evolution of policy and practice at a system-wide level and
beyond.35 The PDAs are also well placed to support RCs to convene regional organisations, IFIs,
diplomatic delegations, civil society and engage them in exploring better joint approaches for conflict
prevention. Thus, there is a need for the programme to engage at a global, strategic and policy levels,

33 See the management section for further detail on PDA management.

34
National, sub-regional and regional depending on demand.
35
Ncube, B. and Fergusson, L., “Joint UNDP-DPA Programme Mid-Term Evaluation Report 2015-2017”, February 2018, p.47
(Conclusion No. 3).
as well as with a wider network of partners at the country level. In this respect, the joint programme’s
approach to contributing to this outcome is based on the theory of change hypothesis that:

If the joint programme – through partnerships, knowledge generation, experience sharing,

and the development of a community of practice on conflict prevention and sustaining
peace – enables UNDP, DPPA, and the broader UN system to continue to engage
proactively in experience-based policy formulation and partnerships, then UN and wider
international engagement and support in this area will be further refined and advanced.

The joint programme has already, and will continue to accumulate, a significant breadth and depth of
knowledge around conflict prevention and sustaining peace. By enhancing knowledge management
and practice and policy development capacities in the joint programme secretariat, the participating
entities of the joint programme will be better placed to advance development thinking and practice
within the UN and the broader multilateral system, informing key debates and making a critical
contribution to broader systemic and policy change. The integration of DPA and PBSO within the
single department of the new DPPA will further support the realisation of this goal.
 Table 1: Results framework

UNDP Strategic Plan outcome(s): Outcome 2: Accelerate structural transformations for sustainable development
Outcome 3: Strengthen resilience to shocks and crisis36
DPPA Strategic Plan outcome(s): Goal 1: Strengthening international peace and security through inclusive prevention, mediation and
peacebuilding processes (Strategic Objective 3: Investing in sustaining peace)

Sustainable Development Goal(s): SDG 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development

Programme title: Preventing conflict, sustaining peace: a joint UNDP-DPPA programme on building national capacities for prevention

ATLAS Award ID: Award: TBC Project: 00101205

JOINT PROGRAMME OUTCOME 1: Targeted initiatives and national capacities are more effectively contributing to conflict prevention and
sustaining peace

Global indicator(s):

Outcome indicator 1: Improved government policies and strategies relating to conflict prevention and sustaining peace.
Outcome indicator 2: Targeted components of national peace architecture are created or improved.
Outcome indicator 3: Greater range and variety of national stakeholders/groups are involved in national conflict prevention and peacebuilding work,
including women and youth groups.
Outcome indicator 4: Targeted national stakeholders are demonstrating stronger skills and understanding of conflict prevention and sustaining peace.
Outcome indicator 5: Level of influence that joint UNDP-DPPA programme support has had on a) early warning systems, b) diplomacy, c) mediation and d)
national dialogue.

JOINT PROGRAMME OUTCOME 2: UN Country Teams have strategies and programmes that are increasingly conflict sensitive, and are
engaged in wider partnerships on sustaining peace

Global indicator(s):

Outcome indicator 1: % of joint programme countries that have conducted or updated conflict analysis in the last three years.
Outcome indicator 2: % of joint programme countries where the Common Country Assessment and/or UNDAF is explicitly informed by joint conflict
analysis.

36
The programme contributes to the following UNDP SP outputs:
2.3.1 Data and risk-informed development policies, plans, systems and financing incorporate integrated and gender-responsive solutions to reduce disaster risks, enable
climate change adaptation and mitigation, and prevent risk of conflict[1]
3.2.1. National capacities strengthened for reintegration, reconciliation, peaceful management of conflict and prevention of violent extremism in response to national
policies and priorities
3.3.1. Evidence-based assessment and planning tools and mechanisms applied to enable implementation of gender-sensitive and risk-informed prevention and
preparedness to limit the impact of natural hazards and pandemics and promote peaceful, just and inclusive societies
3.3.2 Gender-responsive and risk-informed mechanisms supported to build consensus, improve social dialogue and promote peaceful, just and inclusive societies
Outcome indicator 3: No. of UN resident agencies/funds/programmes in joint UNDP-DPPA programme countries that have developed conflict sensitivity
principles at country level with support provided via the joint UNDP-DPPA programme.
Outcome indicator 4: Level and number of UNCT initiatives/programmes that are explicitly targeted at addressing peace and conflict issues.

Joint programme outputs Planned activities Planned budget

Outputs and output indicators Indicative activities Responsible Budget Amount in USD
party description
Per annum 5-year total
Output 1: UN peace and development capacities - Deploy and support Peace and International 16,250,000 81,250,000
enhanced and high-quality and context-specific Development Advisors. Staff38
professional advice, expertise and accompaniment to - Deploy and support national PDAs, UNVs
the UN system, partner governments and civil society and secondees.
provided - Include gender expertise on women and National staff 2,000,000 10,000,000
youth empowerment in ToRs.
Output indicators: - Deploy short-term technical capacities
including interim PDAs.
1.1. % of joint UNDP-DPPA programme priority - Advise RCs and UN Country Teams on
countries with highly-skilled Peace and gender responsive conflict prevention, Consultants 1,500,000 7,500,000
Development capacities in place conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding
UNDP/DPPA
(disaggregated per M&E framework) strategies.
- Strengthen partnerships with national
1.2. Scale and quality of context-specific and governments, political parties and civil Workshops 1,000,000 5,000,000
conflict sensitive advice provided to UN RCs society, including women and youth groups
and UNCTs37 - Establish new strategic partnerships with Travel 1,500,000 7,500,000
regional organisations, IFIs and diplomatic
1.3. Scale and quality of external advice, support community.
or engagement partner governments, civil - Convene joint programme partners
society, regional organisations, IFIs and (relevant Embassy colleagues) at the
diplomatic community. country level on regular basis.

Output 2: Catalytic and context-specific conflict - Undertake joint conflict, political, and Contracts 6,000,000 30,000,000
prevention and peacebuilding initiatives implemented political economy analysis .
- Provide political reporting and analysis
Output indicators: [including for the RMRs] and talking points Consultants 2,000,000 10,000,000
for senior management on issues related to UNDP/DPPA
2.1. Number of in-country initiatives that support conflict prevention.
conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity, - Engage in preventive diplomacy under the Travel 1,000,000 5,000,000
guidance of the RC and DPPA.

37 A detailed methodology note to be developed during the first year of the Programme to be piloted during the second year.
38 Number of PDAs will be decided annually based on the criticality assessment, hence this budget is indicative.
 including with a focus on gender sensitive - Support CCA and UNDAF drafting processes Workshops 2,000,000 10,000,000
analysis. and other strategy development processes
at the country level.
2.2. % of countries with PDA supported initiatives - Support establishment of early warning and
to build national capacities. risk monitoring mechanisms, and ensure
inclusion of gender specific indicators.
2.3. % of PDA countries with initiatives that - Engage and support dialogue, mediation
support early warning, dialogue and and facilitation initiatives, with a focus on
mediation, including the participation of the inclusion of women and youth.
women and youth. - Support establishment of national
infrastructures for peace.
2.4. Number of in country initiatives supporting - Review and provide inputs to UNCT
female mediators, or women’s participation in programmes on conflict sensitivity.
dialogue processes. - Create entry points, and support catalytic
prevention programmes at the
country/regional level.
- Facilitate training, accompaniment and
capacity-building of national/local actors,
with a specific focus on women.
Output 3: Effective strategies for deployment and - Develop a professional (learning) International 2,100,000 10,500,000
partnerships, as well as professional development and development strategy for PDAs, with a Staff
learning for PDAs created and implemented particular focus on female PDAs and
implement the strategy.
- Organise learning and peer to peer General staff 250,000 1,000,000
Output indicators: exchange opportunities for PDAs, including
with gender and human rights advisors
3.1. Efficient, effective and timely PDA when possible.
deployment process based on a - Organise learning and peer to peer Workshops 2,000,000 10,000,000
comprehensive global roster of expertise exchange opportunities for RCs.
ensuring gender parity - Review, strengthen and consolidate the
PDA roster with a particular focus on the
3.2. A learning and professional development gender parity of the cadre, and the Travel 1,500,000 7,500,000
system and network that supports the needs language requirements of the countries.39
of PDAs and their partners - Manage the PDA roster and PDA UNDP/DPPA
deployments.
3.3. Effective global partnerships that allow the - Provide guidance to recruitment processes
joint programme to share its experience and to mitigate gender bias and ensure gender
influence policy balance
- Establish and manage an online community
of practice for the PDAs.
- Explore new and enhance existing global
partnerships on prevention.
- Improve knowledge management and
dissemination from the PDAs.
- [Co-]organise global and regional PDA and
RC retreats.
- Generate and disseminate guidance and
knowledge products aimed at increasing

39Roster mechanisms are under review currently and there is a plan to further consolidate them under the Global
Policy Network of UNDP.
 women’s empowerment and gender
equality objectives in the work of PDAs.
- Provide training opportunities to strengthen
programming and gender mainstreaming
capacities of PDAs.
- Organise PDA inductions.
- Review, implement and monitor gender
workplan
- Facilitate enhanced interaction and support
by UNDP and DPA technical teams and MSU
to PDAs.
Total Programme 37,600,000 187,750,000
cost*
Indirect support 3,128,000 15,620,000
cost*
Grand total Direct and 42,228,000 210,870,000
indirect costs

* Please read the Explanatory Note on Harmonised Financial Reporting to Donors and its Annexes for guidance on how these terms should be interpreted
4. Governance, management, coordination and partnerships

Building on lessons learned as well as established global best practices for joint programming, the
joint UNDP-DPPA programme incorporates a number of mechanisms to ensure effective governance,
programme management and coordination, both internally and externally vis-à-vis
donors/development partners and other stakeholders. The structures set out in this joint programme
document do not substitute for organisation-specific arrangements required by respective internal
policies of UNDP and DPPA. Fund management arrangements are detailed separately under section
six (6) of this programme document.

Programme governance40

The joint programme Steering Committee serves as the overall governance structure of the joint
programme and will be constituted in accordance with a terms of reference to be approved in the first
Steering Committee meeting. The joint programme Steering Committee, which will be co-chaired by
UNDP and DPPA at the level of Assistant Secretary-General (ASG), represents the primary governance
entity of the programme, responsible for guiding its strategic direction and with overall accountability
for progress and results. The Steering Committee will be convened annually, and is mandated to:

i. Provide ultimate oversight of the joint programme on behalf of UNDP and DPPA;
ii. Approve annual work plans (AWPs) and budgets;
iii. Approve requested changes to any of the joint programme policies;
iv. Review the strategic direction of the joint programme;
v. Propose new strategic areas of collaboration or joint initiatives, as appropriate;
vi. Keep UN senior leadership regularly informed about the deliberations and decisions of the
Steering Committee.

In addition to the relevant management/technical components of UNDP and DPPA (including PBSO
components now incorporated within DPPA), regional bureaux of UNDP and regional divisions of DPPA
shall be invited to participate in the joint programme Steering Committee. The DSG will be asked to
designate a representative to participate in the Steering Committee meetings with a view of
representing the Resident Coordinators. Every effort will be made to seek consensus in the Steering
Committee decision-making. In case consensus cannot be reached, decisions will be taken by majority
vote of the attending members, and in case of any dispute, decisions will be guided by the co-chairs.
All decisions shall require the agreement of both co-chairs.

40
With the UNDS and UN Peace and Security Architecture reforms taking place from 1 January 2019 the management structures
and participation in them may need to be further reviewed and adjusted to respond to needs.
Programme management

Overall management responsibility for the joint programme shall rest jointly with the team leaders of
UNDP and DPPA who are designated to the joint programme by the respective UN entities, thereby
ensuring full joint ownership at the management level as well as optimal integration of the joint
programme within the broader frameworks of UNDP and DPPA. The UNDP Team Leader will ensure
that the joint programme and the PDA network benefit from a network of Conflict Prevention
Specialists at headquarters and in the regional hubs of UNDP. S/he will ensure that support to conflict
prevention programming is provided in a coherent manner, and that linkages are made with other
relevant components of UNDP. The DPPA Team Leader will likewise ensure that relevant linkages are
optimised within DPPA, including vis-à-vis DPPA regional political offices, relevant policy development
and guidance units, as well as the Mediation Support Unit. In this way, the joint programme and the
global network of PDAs will continue to benefit from the support and engagement of staff from the
wider teams of UNDP and DPPA.

Under the supervision of the two team leaders (DPPA and UNDP), day-to-day management and
operations responsibility for the programme will rest with the Joint Programme Manager. The
functions and responsibilities of the Joint Programme Manager are in line with standard UNDP
Programme Management functions and expectations.

The Joint Programme Secretariat team,41 will be comprised as follows:

• Joint Programme Manager

• Programme specialist (with responsibility for knowledge and practice development)
• Programme specialist (programme effectiveness, monitoring and evaluation)
• Programme specialists x 4-6 (interim PDA functions/programming support to PDAs and M&E)
• Communications and events coordination analyst

41 The composition of the Joint Programme team and the required number staff will be reviewed during the mid-term review
of the programme.
 • Human resources/roster analyst (temporary appointment)42
• Programme and finance associate

Beyond the Joint Programme Secretariat (and therefore outside of the formal joint programme
structure), both DPPA and UNDP possess a wealth of core ‘in house’ technical capacities and expertise
that will be drawn on to support the agreed objectives of the joint programme. Both DPPA regional
desks and UNDP regional bureaux will remain closely involved in identifying the needs and supporting
the deployment and engagement of UN Peace and Development Advisors in programme countries.
Meanwhile at the policy level, close working engagement will be ensured with the relevant policy
teams of UNDP and DPPA so that the experiences of the joint programme can continue to inform
dialogue and policy formulation on conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

As the new structure of DPPA is rolled out, the programme will ensure that the necessary links are
made to units with relevant or complementary expertise, including in areas such as governance,
peacebuilding, mediation support and elections. Meanwhile UNDP is committed to ensuring that the
technical support needed to realise the objectives underpinning the joint programme is made
available. Accordingly, UNDP’s governance/peacebuilding and conflict prevention capacities at
headquarters and in the regions will contribute dedicated technical and backstopping support that is
aligned with the objectives of the joint programme. 43 In addition, UNDP is also responsible for project
and operational management of the programme. UNDP Human Resource systems and capacities are
utilized for the recruitment of the PDAs and other project-funded staff based on the agreed staffing
structures and the annual PDA criticality assessment. As the managing agent, UNDP is ultimately
responsible to all donors on the use of the programme funds. UNDP will make all efforts to ensure the
programme delivers value for money and takes a cost-conscious approach.

42 The HR analyst will be hired initially to cover the period during which the PDA roster will be opened for global applications
in 2019. The need for the HR analyst will be reviewed once the roster is finalised.
43
Costs of staff outlined in the team structure will be charged on the programme, in addition to the corporately agreed DPC.
Country level management

The Joint UNDP-DPPA Programme services the RCs, UNDP and DPA. In practice this means PDAs
report primarily to the RC, and secondarily to UNDP and DPA. They have a UNDP contract necessitating
a legal, operational and administrative relationship with the RR. 44 In addition, the PDA will have a
responsibility to advise UNDP (as well as the full UNCT) on conflict prevention and peace building
programmes, and to work with DPPA to ensure linkages with UN’s political work, to ensure political
strategies inform programmes and vice versa. UNDP (RR and/or RBx) and DPPA45 desks will participate
in the PDA selection panels and receive bi-monthly reports.

Letters of agreement will be signed between the RCs, UNDP and DPA to ensure all parties have the
same understanding of the expected results of the PDA deployments, and to ensure that all parties
understand the need to link to the global monitoring framework of the joint programme.

To the extent feasible following the UN reform, UN Country Teams will be encouraged to contribute
to the co-financing of the PDA salary. This will be especially pertinent in contexts where PDAs are
deployed for longer than two years and with a view to having full funding after five years of a PDA
deployment.46

Finally, seed funds provided to the PDAs will be managed under the overall responsibility of the UNDP
RR (in full consultation and agreement with the RC and DPPA) who has the financial responsibility of
UNDP funds spent at the country level.

Coordination

Internal UN coordination and cooperation

The ‘UNDP-DPA Partnership Note’ endorsed by the UN Under-Secretaries-General of UNDP and DPA
in October 201547 outlines the basis for internal coordination and cooperation under the Joint
Programme. On this basis, the joint programme Technical Committee is the principal mechanism
for operationalising coordinated programme implementation. The Technical Committee will be co-
chaired by the Chief of Policy and Guidance, DPPA and UNDP Crisis Bureau Deputy Director (or the
designated DPPA and UNDP Managers/Team Leaders)48 to ensure joint ownership in decision-making.
Meeting twice a year, the Technical Committee carries out the following functions, in accordance with
a revised ‘terms of reference’, to be approved in the first Steering Committee meeting of the
programme:

i. Review annual workplan and resources of the joint programme;

ii. Provide advice on management dilemmas and decisions facing the joint programme;
iii. Review and endorse the criticality assessment;
iv. Discuss new ideas, emerging needs and challenges affecting the joint programme;
v. Consider and provide guidance on new strategic areas of collaboration or joint initiatives.

In addition to the management and technical components of UNDP and DPPA with responsibility for
the joint programme (and PBSO components now incorporated within DPPA) regional bureaux of UNDP
and regional desks of DPPA will be invited to participate in the Technical Committee. With a view to

44
Since PDAs have UNDP contracts, their performance evaluations will be completed in the UNDP performance appraisal
system (PMD) by the UNDP RR as the contract holder, with inputs from the RC as the primary supervisor and comments from
DPA and UNDP on the annual performance goals linked to their work. A standardised template for performance goals will be
prepared to avoid confusion.
45
A representative from both DPPA and UNDP will be in the roster selection panel. In case of external recruitment, a
representative of each will participate in each step of the recruitment process.
46 There is still some unclarity on the links of the RCs to UNCT budgets following the reform at the time of finalization of this

document, and the cost-sharing policy will need to be informed by the new reality from 2019.
47
UNDP-DPA Partnership Note, 2015 (internal).
48 Different Chairs may be designated by DPPA and UNDP depending on the agreed structures following ongoing reforms
and realignment processes in both entities.
deepening collaboration and coherence with other parts of the UN system, representatives of OHCHR,
UN Women, UNV and UNICEF may also be invited to participate in the Technical Committee. In this
way, UNDP and DPPA aim to further deepen coordination and cooperation with relevant parts of the
UN ‘house’, with a view to further advancing the mainstreaming of conflict prevention assistance and
strengthening coordinated deployment in support of the UN system and its partners. The joint
programme has on-going partnerships with UNV and the Folke-Bernadotte Academy to support the
deployment of different types of peace and development capacities (UNVs and secondees), and the
programme envisages that additional partners may be engaged in similar agreements going forward.

Donor/development partner coordination

The formal legal relationship between bilateral donors and the participating UN entities of the joint
programme is regulated by the ‘Third-party Cost-sharing Agreement’ or Trust Fund Agreement
between the donor and UNDP (on behalf of the joint programme).

Partnerships

Partnerships with Member States

The Joint Programme Secretariat will organize regular partner meetings gathering member states
including both funding partners of the programme as well as member states receiving support of the
programme. To ensure high-level participation as well as efficiency, the partner meetings will be held
in New York mostly in the sidelines of other important events related to conflict prevention. The
purpose of the partner events is to i) provide a forum for current and prospective partners to engage
with relevant counterparts from UNDP, and DPPA; ii) to discuss and outline priorities for strengthening
the work of the UN system on Conflict Prevention; iii) present country-level results achieved with the
support of the programme and discuss lessons learnt. In addition, the JP team will convene the donor
partners of the programme on regular basis to review progress, review priorities and discuss any
challenges experienced in the programme implementation.

At the country level, the PDAs, under the guidance of the RC, will seek to enhance engagement with
the Joint Programme partners and convene the relevant colleagues from the Embassies on regular
basis to share analysis, to discuss prevention strategies at the country level, as well as possible entry
points for further collaboration (including programmatic entry points as well as other partnerships).

The World Bank and the European Union

At meetings to launch of the UN-World Bank Pathways for Peace report and during the annual UN-EU
dialogue on conflict prevention in Brussels in March 2018, the UN, Member States, the World Bank
and the European Union all recognised the desirability of closer cooperation on preventing conflict and
sustaining peace, especially at the country level. 49 The joint programme will prioritise these
partnerships, including via support to joint initiatives in the field. PDAs, under the guidance of the
RCs, are well placed to support the convening role of the RC among the wider international community
at the country level, including regional organisations, diplomatic delegations, IFIs and key civil society
organisations The engagement with the partners will focus on maintaining regular contact and
frequent exchanges on analysis and views on how to best support national actors in creating local
prevention capacities at the operational and working level. The new iteration of the Joint UNDP-DPPA
Programme internalises this approach in its theory of change and its results monitoring framework
with a view to enhancing partnerships and encouraging more coherent international assistance.
Although the joint programme team in New York is not in the lead of the institutional relationships
with the EU or the IFIs, to the extent possible, it will support these efforts by utilising senior
management presence to reach out to senior management of the World Bank and EU to take lessons
learnt into consideration, and to establish the necessary partnerships to enable enhanced
collaboration at the country level.

49
Member States present at the launch of the UN-World Bank “Pathways for Peace” report and the annual UN-EU dialogue on
Civil society and academia

The joint programme has been working to enhance cooperation with civil society and academia,
engaging actively with the ‘Civil Society-UN Prevention Platform’ since its establishment in 2016. Prior
to this, the PDAs have long engaged with the civil society in their countries of deployment. In March
2018, UNDP and DPA – through the joint programme – proposed a pilot project in two to four
countries, whereby the UN and civil society would work to strengthen collective efforts on prevention,
including through stronger PDA-CSO engagement and the sharing of best practices.50 Recognising
that locally-based organisations often possess critical networks and contextualised knowledge, the
joint programme will increasingly seek to engage and cooperate with civil society actors to improve
results on the ground. The programme will further seek to enhance cooperation with civil society and
academia when it comes to learning, the development and dissemination of best practices, and results
monitoring (see section 6, below).

5. Fund management arrangements and fundraising strategy

The joint programme shall operate a ‘pooled funding’ modality, wherein the Steering Committee
provides strategic direction and oversight, and has decision-making authority. UNDP shall be the
‘Managing Agent’, responsible for technical as well as financial coordination and reporting. Under this
modality, the UN entities and donors/development partners pool allocated resources under the
management of the Managing Agent. Comprehensive guidance and information regarding the roles
and responsibilities of participants in a ‘pooled funded’ joint programme may be accessed in the UNDG
Guidance Note on Joint Programming.51

In case of fund transfers to national implementing partners, cash transfer modalities, the size and
frequency of disbursements, and the scope and frequency of monitoring, reporting, assurance and
audit will be agreed during the annual work planning process, taking into consideration the capacity
of implementing partners, and may be adjusted only with the approval of the Joint Programme
Manager and in accordance with applicable policies, processes and procedures of the participating UN
organisations. For the ExCom agencies, the provisions required under the Harmonised Approach to
Cash Transfers52 (HACT) as detailed in their CPAPs or in other agreements covering cash transfers
will apply.

Fundraising strategy

UNDP and DPPA are jointly responsible for fundraising and resourcing the joint programme. The joint
programme has increased its partner and donor base in the last few years significantly, and the budget
of the programme has grown in line with the additional demand for the programme engagement. The
Programme income raised from approximately $4,5 million in 2016 to anticipated $18 million in
2018.53 However, higher level of income is required to achieve the ambition of the programme and to
realise the agreed objectives of the programme. The programme continues its successful model of
donor engagement and will attempt to further build on these partnerships to gain additional
supporters for the programme. Several of the eight existing partners of the Joint Programme have
indicated an intention to increase their funding to the programme in line with the agreed results
framework and the jointly agreed goals of the programme. Strategies to gain additional support from
new donors will include organising regular partner events where the profile of the joint programme
can be elevated to the attention of larger group of member states as well as bilateral visits and policy
dialogues. The programme also relies on partners to advocate for the programme among other
member states to increase interest in the programme among wider set of possible partners.

50
See ‘Concept Note: Civil Society-UN Prevention Platform Pilot Project with joint UNDP-DPA programme on Building National
Capacities for Conflict Prevention’, draft March 2018.
51
United Nations Development Group, “Guidance Note on Joint Programmes”, United Nations, August 2014.
52
United Nations Development Group, “Harmonised Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT) Framework”, February 2014.
53
Some funding agreements for 2018 were still under finalization at the time of writing.
6. Monitoring, evaluation and reporting

Monitoring

A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategy will be developed at the initiation of the
new phase of the joint UNDP-DPPA programme, which will guide monitoring, evaluation and reporting
throughout programme implementation. Table 2 (below) lists the outcome and output level indicators
against which progress will be measured at the global/programme level, along with baselines, targets,
data collection methods and means of verification. Supporting indicators and/or country level
indicators, also identified in the proposed joint programme monitoring framework, are necessary to
help build a picture of progress (or otherwise) at the global level. Drawing on best practices and
lessons learned, these indicators have been carefully selected for their ability to track – in both
qualitative and quantitative terms – the changes envisaged by the programme. The framework has
integrated a gender sensitive focus through the use of disaggregated data and gender-specific
indicators. The joint programme secretariat will be responsible for leading all regular monitoring
processes, including coordinating data collection and tracking of progress against these targets, with
support as needed from the participating UN entities and deployed PDAs. Supplementary tools will be
developed to aid harmonised data collection, as needed, and it is anticipated that the joint programme
will partner with civil society and/or academia in the development of such tools. Anticipated
monitoring tools will include some of the following:

o PDA annual reports based on global indicator framework,

o Regular PDA reports (bi-monthly or as otherwise agreed),
o RC survey (annual),
o PDA survey (annual),
o RC feedback,
o UNDP (RR/RBx) and DPPA feedback,
o Feedback from desk officers on PDA reports,
o Country specific feedback,
o Monitoring missions by Joint Programme Secretariat M&E Specialist,
o PDA peer to peer reviews.

Evaluation

After two years of programme implementation, a robust, independent mid-term evaluation will be
conducted that will take stock of progress against planned results and provide recommendations for
implementation and any necessary readjustment of strategic direction for the final two years of the
programme’s implementation. To improve gender equality and gender mainstreaming outcomes, the
mid-term evaluation shall include a specific focus on gender. Recommendations of this evaluation will
inform planning for any needed adjustments to the programme framework, and progress on
implementation of its recommendations will be reported back to all stakeholders, including
donors/development partners. A final impact evaluation will be conducted no later than three months
before conclusion of the joint programme.

Reporting

Joint programme reports54 (narrative and financial) will be prepared annually that will present analysis
of progress against results and indicator targets agreed in the joint programme monitoring framework,
and analysis of lessons learned, challenges and risks. Prepared by the joint programme secretariat
with input from the participating UN entities and deployed PDAs, it will reflect progress and
achievements of the programme in an integrated manner. The reporting will cover progress against

54
The Standard Progress Report used by the ExCom agencies or any other reporting format used by any other UN organisation
may be adapted for this purpose. Donor requirements shall also be given due consideration. The reporting format shall be
approved by the joint programme steering committee.
outcomes and outputs as agreed in the monitoring framework. Noting the need to generate new
evidence to improve programming and policy work, the annual report will focus on highlighting best
practices on women and youth’s empowerment and inclusion, as separate focus areas. Annual reports
shall be submitted to donors/development partners following approval by the co-chairs of the joint
programme Steering Committee.
Table 2: Joint programme monitoring framework

The following joint programme monitoring framework will be used as the primary regular monitoring and reporting instrument for the joint
programme and incorporated in donor reporting. Each PDA will be requested to provide relevant information from their country through country
specific plan that will be informed by the global framework. Different monitoring tools outlined above will be utilised as means of verification.
Since several baselines are anticipated for collection during 2019, several associated targets will need to be defined also in 2019. The Joint
Programme shall therefore revise the JPMF for approval by the Steering Committee and donors in late 2019.

Global level indicators (with Supporting indicators Reporting type

Collection methods Baseline( Target(s)55 Risks & assumptions
baselines & indicative timeframe) / country-level and means of s)
indicators verification (with
indicative time frame
& frequency)
OUTCOME LEVEL INDICATORS
Outcome 1: Select initiatives and national capacities are more effectively contributing to conflict prevention and sustaining peace
Improved government policies and Idem Narrative C: PDA reports To be To be agreed Assumptions
strategies relating to conflict qualitative (further evidence can established at the • Sufficient national capacities
prevention and sustaining peace. be provided e.g. by in 2019 country level exist that merit support.
government based on the • That the political space for
statements/press baseline actors working on peace to
releases/policy work either exists or can be
documents) created
V: JP secretariat • That the UN is, and remains,
a respected and trusted
Targeted components of national Idem Narrative C: PDA reports; To be To be agreed partner with relevant access
peace architecture are created or qualitative V: JP secretariat established at the to stakeholders
improved. in 2019 country level
based on the Key risks and mitigation
baseline strategies
Greater range and variety of Idem Narrative C: PDA reports; To be To be agreed • The programme does not
national stakeholders/groups are qualitative V: JP secretariat established at the support the right
involved in national conflict in 2019 country level institutions/policies/issues.
prevention and peacebuilding work, based on the Mitigation: good conflict
including women and youth groups. baseline analysis and clear strategy
• JP withdraws support too
Targeted national stakeholders are Idem Narrative C: PDA reports56; To be To be agreed early/does not follow
demonstrating stronger skills and qualitative V: JP secretariat established at the through on what are long-
understanding of conflict prevention in 2019 country level term processes. Mitigation:
and sustaining peace based on the Programme will prioritise
baseline multi-year commitments/
Level of influence that joint UNDP- Level of influence that Narrative C: PDA reports; To be To be agreed strategies
DPPA programme support has had peace and development qualitative V: JP secretariat established at the • Relationships with national
on a) early warning systems, b) personnel in country in 2019 country level partners don’t transfer well
diplomacy, c) mediation and d) have had on a) early based on the between PDAs. Mitigation:
national dialogue warning systems, b) baseline move to PDUs/longer-term
diplomacy, c) mediation appointments/planned
and d) national dialogue overlap and handover

55 As there is currently no accurate data available for the outcome level baselines, the targets will need to be reviewed based on the baseline data that will be gathered in 2019.
56 If jointly agreed with the RC, in some countries perception surveys could be considered if funding is available.
 •
UNCTs are not willing to
engage in supporting early
warning systems, mediation
and dialogue processes.
Mitigation: direction from
UNHQ and RCOs about
importance of this.
Outcome 2: UN Country Teams have strategies and programmes that are increasingly conflict sensitive and are engaged in wider partnerships on sustaining
peace
% of joint UNDP-DPPA programme Idem Quantitative PDA reporting/annual To be Y3 end: 65% Assumptions
countries that have conducted or questionnaire; global established of • RCs will support conflict
updated a peace and conflict stats to be compiled in 2019 programme analysis and will encourage
analysis in the last three years. by Secretariat countries all agencies to participate
• RCs create space in
Y5 end: 75% CCA/UNDAF process for PDA
of to feed in conflict analysis
programme • RCs and agency heads are
countries sufficiently committed to the
% of joint UNDP-DPPA programme Idem Quantitative PDA reporting/annual To be Y3 end: 30% concepts around sustaining
countries where the Common questionnaire; global established of peace, and open to
Country Assessment and/or UNDAF stats to be compiled in 2019 programme guidance, to be receptive to
is explicitly informed by joint by Secretariat countries advice from PDAs
conflict analysis.
Y5 end: 50%
of Risks
programme • PDA is unable to gain
countries sufficient traction with the
No. of UN resident Idem Quantitative PDA reporting/annual To be To be agreed UNCT. Mitigation: support
agencies/funds/programmes in joint questionnaire; global established based on the and messaging from RC and
UNDP-DPPA programme countries stats to be compiled in 2019 baseline HQ
that have developed conflict by Secretariat • Political challenges of
sensitivity principles at country discussing peace and conflict
level with support provided via the issues with government in
joint UNDP-DPPA programme. context of UNDAF
Level and number of UNCT Idem Quantitative UNDAF reporting, To be To be agreed discussions. Mitigation:
initiatives/programmes that are UNCT Country established based on the sensitive approach from RC
explicitly targeted at addressing Programme reporting in 2019 baseline and senior staff. Use
peace and conflict issues. Sustaining Peace Framework
PDA reporting based or Agenda 2030 to create
on their engagement political space.

(in addition, PDAs

could use some of
the following data
sources:
- Spend on SDG
16.
- Use DAC coding
- Sustaining Peace
marker scores
Depending on what
measuring tools
DOCO and O/DSG
make available)
 OUTPUT LEVEL INDICATORS
Output 1: UN peace and development capacities enhanced and high-quality and context-specific professional advice, expertise and accompaniment to the UN
system, partner governments and civil society provided
GENDER MARKER 2

1.1. % of joint UNDP-DPPA # of international PDAs Quantitative Secretariat records 48 Target for Assumptions:
programme priority deployed internation number of - RCs are willing to hire female
countries with highly- % of female PDAs al PDAs PDAs to be PDAs
skilled Peace and 30% agreed by SC - RCOs are ready to recruit
Development capacities in female co-chairs national PDAs
place each year - PDAs are willing to
undertake relevant training
Target to and participate in learning
reach 40% opportunities in areas where
female by their skills require
Year 557 strengthening
- UNCTs and RCs are open to
# of national PDOs in Quantitative Secretariat records 3 Y1: 5 conflict analysis being
place Y2: 7 prioritised;
Y3: 10 - Desk officers are willing to
Y4: 15 share feedback on PDA
Y5: 20 reports;
- RCs are willing to fill in the
(based on annual survey designed by
budget the JP Secretariat;
availability) - RCs invite the PDAs to UNCT
% of countries Quantitative Secretariat records (statistics Y1: 60% meetings.
prioritised by criticality not yet Y2: 65%
assessment that have available Y3: 70%
PDA or similar capacity for 2018) Y4: 75% Key risks and mitigation
in place within 8 Y5: 80% strategies
months of finalization of - RCs continue to prioritise
assessment recruitment of male PDAs.
1.2. Scale and quality of % of JP countries where Quantitative Secretariat to ask 14 in 2017 Y3: 60% Mitigation: if required, only
context-specific and conflict analysis PDAs and compile (statistics have allow recruitment of female
conflict sensitive advice processes designed and not yet completed PDAs for a period of time.
provided to UN RCs and facilitated; available within the - Recruitment processes are
UNCTs. for 2018) last three delayed due to desk officer-
years RC communication delays.
Y5: 75% Mitigation: outline
have responsibilities of each
completed clearly, request involvement
within the of country level HR from
last three outset.
years and - UNCTs/RCs are reluctant to
regularly undertake conflict analysis or
update. prioritise other interventions.
Mitigation: HQ senior

57 The Programme ambition is to reach parity with PDA deployments as soon as possible. Given the trends and the current balance of the existing PDAs, it is expected that 40%
can be achieved within 5 years, and 50% within 10 years. The Joint Programme team recommends all PDA selection panels to prioritise the selection of female candidates.
 # & quality of political Quantitative & DPA desk feedback To be Y3: 70% of leadership to be engaged to
reports to DPA NY by qualitative on quality of established PDA reporting sensitise RCs on the
PDA reporting (annual in 2019 feedback importance.
survey) receives good - Desk officers assessing PDA
feedback reports do not provide
feedback. Mitigation:
Y5: 80% of Division/Bureau Directors to
PDA reporting task desk officers.
receives good - Low response rate to annual
feedback survey. Mitigation: survey
% RCs who rate JP Quantitative Annual RC survey To be Targets to be response required before
support for work established formulated new agreement for next year
relating to Sustaining in 2019 based on can be agreed.
Peace as good or higher baseline
% of joint UNDP-DPPA Quantitative PDA reporting/annual To be Y2: 40%
programme countries questionnaire; global established Y3: 50%
where discussion of stats to be compiled in 2019 Y4: 55%
changes in conflict by Secretariat Y5: 60%
context is a regular (to be
standing item at UNCT reviewed
senior leadership based on
meetings baseline)

1.3. Scale and quality of Qualitative PDA records & To be Targets to be

external advice, support or % PDA time spent; reports on workplan established formulated
engagement provided to progress in 2019 based on
partner governments, , baseline
regional organisations, IFIs Surveys after
diplomatic community, trainings or
civil society, women and workshops
youth groups
PDA work and JP
engagement in the
country to be
reviewed by
monitoring specialist
(3 country visits per
year) and/or peer to
peer visits (up to 3
per year)

Output 2: Catalytic and context-specific conflict prevention and peacebuilding initiatives implemented
GENDER MARKER 2

2.5. Number of in-country % PDA time spent; Qualitative and PDA records & At least 14 Y2:20 Assumptions:
initiatives that support record of advice quantitative reports on workplan in 2017 Y3:22 - RCs, UNCTs and national
conflict analysis and provided; progress (statistics Y4:26 counterparts are willing to
conflict sensitivity, # of people trained not yet Y5:30 engage in conflict analysis
including with a focus on (disaggregated by PDA work and JP available - National counterparts
gender sensitive analysis. gender; engagement in the for 2018, welcome the JP support on
country to be in 2017 strengthening capacities
reviewed by slightly - UNCTs are willing to engage
monitoring specialist different in early warning and
(3 country visits per response
 year) and/or peer to indicators - RCs and national
peer visits (up to 3 were used) counterparts willing to
per year); engage in dialogue and
2.6. % of countries with PDA Qualitative and PDA records & At least 30 Y1: 60% mediation processes
supported initiatives to quantitative reports on workplan countries Y2: 65%
build national capacities. including progress based on Y3: 70% Risks and mitigation
disaggregated independe Y4: 75% strategies
data. PDA work and JP nt Y5: 80% - UNCTs/RCs are reluctant to
engagement in the evaluation undertake conflict analysis or
country to be conducted prioritise other interventions.
reviewed by in 2017 Mitigation: HQ senior
monitoring specialist leadership to be engaged to
(3 country visits per sensitise RCs on the
year) and/or peer to importance.
peer visits (up to 3 - National
per year); counterparts/RCs/UNCTs are
2.7. % of PDA countries with Qualitative and PDA records & At least 33 Y1: 65% risk averse and suspicious
initiatives that support quantitative, reports on workplan in 2017 Y2: 67% about engagement in
early warning, dialogue including progress (2018 Y3: 69% dialogue related activities.
and mediation, including disaggregated statistics Y4: 72% Mitigation: prioritise building
the participation of women data. PDA work and JP not yet Y5: 75% relationships and skills of
and youth. engagement in the available) those willing to engage.
country to be
reviewed by
monitoring specialist
(3 country visits per
year) and/or peer to
peer visits (up to 3
per year);
2.8. Number of in country % PDA time spent; Qualitative and PDA records & To be Targets to be
initiatives supporting record of support quantitative, reports on workplan established formulated
female mediators, or provided including progress in 2019 based on
women’s participation in disaggregated baseline
dialogue and mediation data. PDA work and JP
processes. engagement in the
country to be
reviewed by
monitoring specialist
(3 country visits per
year) and/or peer to
peer visits (up to 3
per year);
Output 3: Effective strategies for deployment and partnerships, as well as professional development and learning for PDAs created and implemented
GENDER MARKER 2

3.1. Efficient, effective and # PDAs deployed by JP, Quantitative JP records 48 Y3: 75% of Assumptions:
timely PDA deployment disaggregated by positions in new - All partners involved in the
process based on a gender and nationality 2018 recruitments PDA recruitment process
comprehensive global completed move process along within
roster of expertise within agreed agreed timeline
deployment - Additional candidates apply
period for the PDA roster during the
roster review process
 Y5: 80 % of - PDAs are willing to and able
new to dedicate time for
recruitments professional development
completed and learning
within agreed - PDAs are willing to engage in
deployment peer-to-peer support
period through the portal
3.2. A learning and professional # of PDAs using the Quantitative Portal stats & 0 Y1: 25% of
development system and portal monitoring PDAs use the Risks and mitigation
network that supports the portal strategies:
needs of PDAs and their (# visits & # downloads Y2: 30 % - Recruitment processes are
partners from Peace Y3: 35% delayed due to desk officer-
Infrastructures portal) Y4:40% RC communication delays.
Y5:50% Mitigation: outline
PDA satisfaction levels Quantitative and Annual survey To be Y1: 20% of responsibilities of each
with professional qualitative established PDAs receive clearly, request involvement
development support in 2019 training of country level HR from
opportunities outset.
based on - PDAs do not have enough
needs time to engage in the portal
Y2: 25% or learning activities.
Y3: 30% Mitigation strategy:
Y4: 35% dedication to learning and
Y5:40% exchange to be strongly
3.3. Effective global # of times the PDA (or Qualitative Annual survey To be To be agreed encouraged in the PDA TORs
partnerships that allow the RC supported by the established based on the to be revised in 2019 during
joint programme to share PDA) convenes regional in 2019 baseline roster review process.
its experience and organisations, IFIs and assessment
influence policy diplomatic community
in the country
7. Legal context

The participating UN entities of the joint programme are constituted on the legal bases detailed in the
table below and participate in the joint programme based on and in full accordance with their
respective mandates, policies and procedures.

Participating UN entity Legal basis

UNDP UNDP was established in 1965 by the United Nations General Assembly and
became operational in January 1966. In resolution 2029 of 22 November 1965,
the General Assembly decided “to combine the Expanded Programme of Technical
Assistance and the Special Fund in a programme to be known as the United Nations
Development Programme”. Through decision 94/14, the Executive Board of UNDP
decided that “the overall mission of UNDP should be to assist programme countries
in their endeavour to realise sustainable human development, in line with their
national development programmes and priorities…”

DPPA The General Assembly through GA resolution A/RES/72/262C endorsed the

establishment of the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA)
effective 1 January 2019.

This joint programme document forms part of an overall programmatic framework under which
several associated country level activities will be implemented. When assistance and support services
are provided from the joint programme to the associated country level activities, this document shall
be the “Project Document” instrument referred to in: (i) the respective signed SBAAs for the specific
countries; or (ii) in the Supplemental Provisions attached to the Project Document in cases where the
recipient country has not signed an SBAA with UNDP, attached hereto and forming an integral part
hereof. All references in the SBAA to “Executing Agency” shall be deemed to refer to the “Managing
Agent.”

UNDP shall ensure, in its capacity as Managing Agent, that programme implementation is undertaken
in accordance with its financial regulations, rules, practices and procedures to the extent that they do
not contravene the principles of the Financial Regulations and Rules of UNDP. Where the financial
governance of an implementing partner does not provide the required guidance to ensure best value
for money, fairness, integrity, transparency, and effective international competition, the financial
governance of UNDP shall apply.

The participating UN entities agree to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the
funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities
associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by Participating UN
organisations do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established
pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in
all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under the programme document.

8. Work plans and budgets

Detailed, budgeted annual work plans (AWPs) will be developed by the joint UNDP-DPPA programme
on an annual basis, consistent with the format presented in Table 3 (below). Annual work plans will
detail the activities to be carried out within the joint programme and by any responsible implementing
partners, timeframes and planned inputs from the participating UN entities. Work plans will be
presented annually at the meeting of the Joint Programme Steering Committee and approved by
signature of the co-chairs of the Steering Committee.
Table 3: Annual work plan 2019

Joint UNDP-DPPA programme on building national capacities for conflict prevention Period: 1 Dec 2018- 31 Nov 2019

JP Outcomes:

Outcome 1: Targeted initiatives and national capacities are more effectively contributing to conflict prevention and sustaining peace.
Outcome 2: UN Country Teams have strategies and programmes that are increasingly conflict sensitive, and are leading partnerships on sustaining peace.

UN Activities TIME FRAME Implementing PLANNED BUDGET

entity partner
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Source of Budget description Amount
funds
JP Output 1: UN peace and development capacities enhanced and high-quality and context-specific professional advice, expertise and accompaniment to the
UN system, partner governments and civil society provided
UNDP Deploy and support Peace and Development x x x x UNDP Donors International Staff 16,250,000
& Advisors.
DPPA Deploy and support national PDAs, UNVs and X X X x UNDP Donors
secondees.
Deploy short-term technical capacities X X X X UNDP Donors National Staff 2,000,000
including interim PDAs.
Advise RCs and UN Country Teams on conflict X X X X UNDP Donors
prevention, conflict sensitivity and
peacebuilding strategies.
Strengthen partnerships with national X X X X UNDP Donors Consultants 1,500,000
governments, political parties and civil society.
Establish new strategic partnerships with X X X X UNDP Donors Workshops 1,000,000
regional organisations, IFIs and diplomatic
community.
Convene joint programme partners (relevant X X X X UNDP Donors Travel 1,500,000
Embassy colleagues) at the country level on
regular basis.
JP Output 2: Catalytic and context-specific conflict prevention and peacebuilding initiatives implemented

UNDP Undertake joint conflict, political, and political X x X X UNDP Donors Contracts 6,000,000
& economy analysis.
DPPA Provide political reporting and analysis X X X X UNDP Donors
[including for the RMRs] and talking points for
senior management on issues related to
conflict prevention.
Support CCA and UNDAF drafting processes X X X X UNDP Donors Consultants 2,000,000
and other strategy development processes at
the country level.
Support establishment of early warning and X X X X UNDP Donors
risk monitoring mechanisms.
Engage and support dialogue, mediation and X X X X UNDP Donors Travel 1,000,000
facilitation initiatives.
Support establishment of national X x X X UNDP Donors
infrastructures for peace.
Review and provide inputs to UNCT X X X X UNDP Donors Workshops 2,000,000
programmes on conflict sensitivity.
ANNEX I: Mid-term evaluation: summarised conclusions and recommendations1

In its totality, the evaluators assess the joint programme as meeting standards and expectations,
even exceeding standards and expectations in some areas. The evaluation has also identified some
challenges and suggests where adjustments and improvements should be made. Overall, most
involved stakeholders see the joint programme as valuable and needed; there is strong demand for
such work to not only continue but to consider how it can be further scaled-up and enhanced. Further
elaboration is contained in the main report. While not wishing to downplay the programme’s positives,
the following summarised principal conclusions and recommendations have largely been formulated
to provide constructive suggestions for how management might further improve upon the successes
of the joint programme:

SUMMARISED CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 1: The PDA-modality is the flagship of the joint programme and has largely been a
success across a broad spectrum of different country contexts. Through PDAs, the joint programme
has made an impact at the country level among national partners and demand for PDA deployments
is increasing. PDAs are so valuable that the modality is at risk of becoming a victim of its own success
if the joint programme becomes seen as a PDA ‘rostering service’. As the joint programme matures
and potentially scales-up in its next programme phase, management has the opportunity to enhance
its approaches and more comprehensively respond to the requirements of different country contexts
with a wider spectrum of results-based support than simply deploying PDA-types. Such a future route
was often argued by many stakeholders, who described the next programme phase as an opportunity
to strive for a “joint programme 2.0” or an enhanced “Status Quo-Plus” that would more fully elaborate
and enhance current Joint Programme approaches.

Conclusion 2: The joint programme faces unique challenges for employing results-based programme
design and management methods. Programme management has progressed in recent years, but is
still striving to meet key standards and requirements from the perspective of results-based
programming. A central challenge has been effectively defining results, consistently capturing these
through the programme’s M&E systems and then translating these into a coherent narrative about
the programme’s impact. More attention and resources need to be devoted to results-based design
and M&E to ensure the programme can demonstrate its impact, both for accountability and to maintain
confidence of its funding base. At a deeper level, though, the joint programme has neither been
designed nor operated on the premise of an explicit and coherent ‘theory of change’ (ToC) from which
the rest of the strategy flows, reflecting the fact that different stakeholders have different expectations
of the programme. The process to design the next phase of the joint programme presents an excellent
opportunity to further strengthen the programme’s: theory of change; results strategies at the
country-level; and results-based M&E systems.

Conclusion 3: The joint programme has been ahead of UN thinking and practice in terms of conflict
prevention, with ground breaking interventions (such as eminent persons panels), at the country
level. The programme possesses great potential for translating its lessons, good practice examples
and evidence-base into vital inputs for conflict prevention and sustaining peace policy development
at the global, regional and national levels (as well as for replication in other countries under the joint
programme). While more work is needed to realise the programme’s largely internally focused
learning and knowledge management results under Output 5, the joint programme also possesses
great potential to strategically input into the conflict prevention and sustaining peace community of
practice across the wider UN.

Conclusion 4: Given the global nature of the programme, number of outputs, requisite levels of
interactions and engagements across so many countries and stakeholders and need for much stronger
results-based programme and the enhancement of other management capacities, the current

1
Verbatim excerpt from Ncube, B. and Fergusson, L., “Joint UNDP-DPA Programme Mid-Term Evaluation Report, 2015-2017”,
February 2018, pp. 9-12.
programme management team is overstretched. While the existing team proved largely effective in
responding to requests for information and clarifications, keeping the programme on-track and
advancing some new management innovations, additional staff and other solutions are required to
reinforce programme management capacity. This will especially be the case as many stakeholders
see great potential and significant opportunities to scale-up the joint programme.

Conclusion 5: The results achieved through PDAs are attracting increased global interest and
attention, inside and outside of the UN. The visibility and strategic positioning of the programme is
good across DPA, UNDP and PBSO. Most stakeholders involved with or benefitting from the joint
programme see it as a valuable and much needed innovation and PDAs as strategic assets for the UN,
national actors and the wider international community. At the same time, many wider stakeholders
at the country and global levels, particularly UN entities outside of the programme management team,
do not understand or take advantage of the full value of PDAs or the joint programme.

Conclusion 6: There is sufficient evidence that at the country level, national ownership and leadership
of PDA-supported initiatives is strong and that by working with institutions, strategically positioned
individuals and community-level initiatives (mainly though civil society partners), the chances of
sustainability of results beyond PDA deployment is high. The challenge however is that commitment
and coordination is largely dependent on the personal relations and understanding of leadership of
the PDA and RC. This presents a risk of reversal of gains once these individuals leave. Apart from this,
there is no regularised Member State involvement or consultation in the management processes of
the programme, an element that evaluators deemed essential.

Conclusion 7: The joint programme has been strategic in its partnerships to enhance programme
delivery through PDAs. The FBA, UN Volunteer programme and the Insider Mediator project have
made significant contributions. However, there is need for continued effort in forging partnerships
with other sectors that could augment the current set and contribute to attainment of results.

SUMMARISED RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: In potentially enhancing and scaling-up the joint programme, it is suggested

that management prioritise improving the quality and breadth of joint Programme support to each
country engagement rather than the quantity of country engagements. This would require regularising
more rigorous and collaborative needs assessments of country situations that involve all key
stakeholders (such as UNDP, DPA, RCs, UNCT and national actors) to converge expectations into basic
multi-year ‘engagement frameworks’. Such frameworks would identify a spectrum of needs-based
support tailored to each country context, rather than necessarily defaulting to a PDA deployment
approach. Working from an agreed framework, the programme could also build-in sustainability
outcomes and exit strategies from the outset. Such an approach would likely result in country
engagements on average becoming more resource intensive and, as a consequence, management
might effectively have to adopt a ‘narrower but deeper’ approach that would plateau the number of
country engagements (though this depends on overall growth of programme resource mobilisation).

Recommendation 2: It is recommended that joint programme management increases the use of

results-based management practices as it designs its next programme phase, including taking steps
to: undertake an inclusive and collaborative design process with stakeholders and partners; facilitate
a process to review and develop a coherent and viable Theory of Change (ToC) followed then by
design of a new Results Framework with realistic and clear Outcomes and expected Outputs; design
workable indicators and establish baselines so that country-level results can be aggregated into global
impact statements (aided by instituting ‘engagement frameworks’ with in-country results linked to
the Joint Programme’s Outcomes and ToC); establish indicators and baselines for global results the
programme might seek to achieve, elements of programme management performance and criteria
for future evaluations; and re-develop M&E systems with practical reporting mechanisms that
document results (not just outputs). Management should consider the addition of an M&E Specialist
to the Secretariat so that it can effectively carry the additional workload of designing the next
programme phase, but also the enhanced M&E approaches required for the next programme phase.
Alternatively, project design and M&E specialists could be procured over the short-term to support
the Secretariat during a new programme design process. Advice and support could also be sought
from UNEG and/or the PBSO, as well as through collaborative partnerships with peace research and
other institutions that could enhance the programme through enhanced monitoring methodologies
and innovative data management technologies.

Recommendation 3: The joint programme is recommended to take steps to increasingly position

itself in closer support to the centres of conflict prevention and sustaining peace policy development
and practice within the UN. More immediately, this could include convening a roundtable with key
players supporting the SG’s Prevention Agenda where national partners of the programme and PDAs
would have an opportunity to share their experiences. More long-term, the joint programme should
explore during the design of its next programme phase how it might prioritise policy advocacy as an
outcome area. Similarly, the joint programme should explore during the design of its next programme
phase how it might expand its current learning Outcome and strategies for the benefit of the wider
UN conflict prevention and sustaining peace community of practice.

Recommendation 4: The evaluators recommend that the joint programme both restructures the
Secretariat and seeks additional partnerships to reinforce its programme management capacities.
Firstly, the Secretariat should be expanded. A minimum team to enable the programme to moderately
scale-up and implement many of the enhancements recommended in the evaluation would include: a
project manager with delegated decision-making authority supported by a project coordinator to
adequately handle the responsibilities of a programme of this nature; a full-time specialist to establish
and run the results-based M&E and reporting systems; a full-time specialist to expand and run a
professional development and learning strategy directed not just at PDAs, but a wider spectrum of
key stakeholders; and a finance/admin assistant. Secondly, the joint programme should identify and
deepen strategic partnerships with think-tanks, specialised institutions and even private sector actors
that may be willing to contribute resources, systems and skill-sets for enhancing programme
management capacity and performance.

Recommendation 5: The evaluation recommends the joint programme invests more to strategically
position itself through partnerships across the wider UN system, particularly the development and
human rights pillars. In the near-term, joint programme management could develop a
communications and strategic engagement strategy to enhance awareness of its work and explore
how it might enhance its strategic partnerships across the UN system. Including DPA regional divisions
as direct members of the Technical Committee would also deepen understanding of the joint
programme across DPA. More long-term, the joint programme should explore during the design of its
next programme phase how it might prioritise enhanced inter-agency involvement and joint initiatives
both at the global level and through joint-programming at the country level (potentially in closer
partnership with the PBSO). As part of this, management needs to instigate more dialogue with senior
UN management about how the joint programme will converge with the structural changes taking
place both with the UN’s peace and security architecture and its development system. Suggestions
were even made by some stakeholders that an opportunity exists to utilise the successes, approaches
and lessons of the joint programme as a foundation for establishing a strategic UN conflict prevention
platform that comprehensively integrates the peace and development pillars of the UN system in
support of the Conflict Prevention and Sustaining Peace Agendas.

Recommendation 6: It is recommended that PDAs and RCs identify strong institutions (either state
or non-state) that can be supported to coordinate national actors in conflict prevention work such
that, even when the PDA leaves, national institutions can sustain the work. Regarding the involvement
of Member States in the programme leadership, it is proposed in the next programme cycle that an
ad hoc structure of programme advisors be created involving seven Member States where PDAs are
deployed. These could meet with joint programme management annually, with one or two virtual
meetings in between. Membership can be rotated every two or three years. This group could serve as
Member State advocates for the joint programme.
Recommendation 7: It is recommended that the joint programme conduct a partnership review and
develop a partnerships strategy that more thoroughly considers foundations, research institutes,
peace practice organisations, private philanthropies and the private sector as potential partners. This
would enable the programme to expand its resource base and lead to enhanced programme quality,
reach and impact.